White Nationalism Is Compatible with Classical Liberalism
Jason Kessler1,504 words
There is nothing in the principles of free speech and individual liberty which bears responsibility for turning Western governments into the anti-white dystopias we live in today. Rather, it was the toxic pill of hostile foreign aliens which poisoned the great Enlightenment project from the start. When White Nationalists criticize classical liberals for proposing inadequate solutions to modern problems, they are specifically criticizing individuals who are not White Nationalists or even white advocates. All of their criticisms are properly directed at these individuals’ lack of white solidarity rather than classical liberalism itself.
Is it possible to be both a classical liberal and a White Nationalist? Yes, of course. In fact, it has already been demonstrated that America’s Founding Fathers were White Nationalists of a sort, even if they were not the kind we have today. A sharper focus on racial questions is required in today’s climate. But in fairness, the European men of George Washington’s time had not had the miserable and toxic experience of those generations who were living in forced proximity with alien races and cultures. They could not possibly have realized the threat of bringing the African slaves into the American Eden. They were also quite naïve about the subversive, Machiavellian gamesmanship of the Jews.
For more on the topic of the Founding Fathers’ White Nationalism, read Jared Taylor’s essay on the topic at American Renaissance. No less than Benjamin Franklin, James Madison, Thomas Jefferson, John Jay, John Quincy Adams, and Alexander Hamilton articulated their view that the United States was exclusively a country for a white citizenry. Clearly, the Founders had a different conception of the United States than America’s twenty-first century politicians. They had specifically reserved citizenship for “free white men” of “good character” in documents such as the Naturalization Act of 1790.
Critics of the Enlightenment have argued that classical liberalism supposedly necessitated the tyrannical, state-enforced “equality” and integration of the races that we have today. Tell that to Thomas Jefferson. In his autobiography, written in 1821, Jefferson wrote:
Nothing is more certainly written in the book of fate than that these people are to be free. Nor is it less certain that the two races, equally free, cannot live in the same government. Nature, habit, opinion has drawn indelible lines of distinction between them.
This quote is inscribed on the Jefferson Memorial in Washington, DC, but has been shortened to omit the part about separation of the races. Jefferson was much closer to Jared Taylor than modern Americans realize.
A further demonstration of Jefferson’s understanding that classical liberalism did not necessitate “equality” between races within the same nation is inferred from his disparate reactions to the other Enlightenment revolutions of his age in France and Haiti. While Jefferson supported the French Revolution, he vehemently opposed that in Haiti.[1] In Haiti the revolution was a racial one, with black slaves rising up to kill the white French colonists. Jefferson opposed this on racial grounds because he was a race realist with loyalty to his own kind. The Haitian Revolution, with its apocalyptic hues of modern race war, shares much more in common with twenty-first century woke revolutionaries than with the American Revolution. There should be no serious doubt that if Jefferson were alive today, his politics would align more with the dissident Right than with any mainstream politician of today.
There should also be no serious doubt that the United States was intended to be a white nation, given the explicit references to white identity in its founding documents. Would a classical liberal white nation founded in the twenty-first century necessarily end up in the same way as the US? Most on the dissident Right seem to presume that to be the case, although this view is completely unfounded. Hindsight is 20/20, and we have a field of vision and generations of painful experience that our forefathers did not. If a white nation were to be founded according to the principles outlined in Greg Johnson’s White Nationalist Manifesto, for example, the conditions of that nation’s founding would be quite different from those of eighteenth-century America.
I would argue that these differences would be decisive. First, we would have no black slaves within our borders, nor slaves of any kind. Not only that, but we would have a de facto homogeneous white nation, so there would be no aliens to subvert white interests in the first place. Second, political philosophy is not a religion, or at least it shouldn’t be treated that way. Anything that the founders of such a state would agree by consensus that the Enlightenment thinkers, including the Founding Fathers, got wrong we could discard and replace with new ideas. The most prominent example of this are ideas about equality and statements such as “all men are created equal,” which was coined by Jefferson in the Declaration of Independence. Such things have been wildly misinterpreted and used to subvert the core idea of the nation, putting the most heinous minority groups, such as men who cut off their penises and then pretend to be women, in a dominant position over the majority.
Doing away with these ideas does not run counter to the Enlightenment’s core principles; rather, it is fundamental to its nature. You cannot have a true democracy if the majority is not able to dictate the society’s overriding objectives and values. “All men are created equal” is anti-democratic and leads to a tyranny of the minority. But just because some of these ideas were naïve or improperly articulated does not mean that we should discard them altogether. Nothing has transpired in the American experiment which argues against the bedrock values of free speech, freedom of religion, or democracy.
Defending democracy is where the most controversy will occur within the dissident Right. It is true that democracy has been an unsatisfactory disaster within the living memory of anyone alive today. But this does not necessarily have to be the case, nor is there a better system available.
What American “democracy” has become is an affront to its intended purpose. Democracy does not work in a polarized multicultural, multiracial society. Democracy properly functions in a homogeneous society where the people share a similar bloodline, traditions, and general objectives for their people. Where good-faith disagreements arise, they can be peacefully resolved through elections. What democracy is not intended to do is to settle the balance of power between warring tribes who should not be sharing the same government in the first place, and who do not have good-faith disagreements. The population of the US is becoming increasingly dissatisfied with the electoral process because they cannot live with the results of losing. Whoever wins in the clash of civilizations that American elections have become will use the government’s awesome power to oppress their political rivals. This process teeters back and forth to some extent, but is unsustainable. Everyone can see that the US is teetering on the edge of an abyss.
This dissatisfaction with democracy and our broken electoral system has been incorrectly laid at the feet of classical liberalism itself, and not at multiculturalism’s where it belongs. Because democracy is the only system most of us have experienced, it receives most of the blame for our present state of affairs. Some would like us to return to a more authoritarian style of government such as fascism or monarchy. The problems with these systems have never been resolved, however, and they only seem better due to our lack of experience with them. The ideal of the philosopher-king or the great leader is very rarely actualized in reality, if it has ever been achieved at all. Keep in mind that authoritarian leaders are often masters of propaganda and effectively silence any criticism of their regime; thus, we often cannot trust the historical accounts we have of them. What is clear is that these forms of government lead to disastrous succession problems. Even if you have a good king or leader at one point, his death is usually followed by centuries of decline and tyranny while his unworthy heirs clash over a polity that only a rare Great Man could have held together.
Classical liberalism is still the best system for ensuring succession without violence, upholding the will of the majority, and maintaining tolerable standards of living for dissidents — provided that we have effective racial homogeneity.
Follow Jason Kessler on Telegram, Twitter, Odysee and Gab.
Note
[1] Stated in Jefferson’s letter to James Monroe of July 14, 1793: “The situation of the St. Domingo fugitives (aristocrats as they are) calls aloud for pity and charity. Never was so deep a tragedy presented to the feelings of man. . . . I become daily more and more convinced that all the West India islands will remain in the hands of the people of colour, and a total expulsion of the whites sooner or later take place. It is high time we should foresee the bloody scenes which our children certainly, and possibly ourselves (South of Patowmac) have to wade through, and try to avert them.”
White%20Nationalism%20Is%20Compatible%20with%20Classical%20Liberalism
Share
Enjoyed this article?
Be the first to leave a tip in the jar!
* * *
Counter-Currents has extended special privileges to those who donate at least $10/month or $120/year.
- Donors will have immediate access to all Counter-Currents posts. Everyone else will find that one post a day, five posts a week will be behind a “paywall” and will be available to the general public after 30 days. Naturally, we do not grant permission to other websites to repost paywall content before 30 days have passed.
- Paywall member comments will appear immediately instead of waiting in a moderation queue. (People who abuse this privilege will lose it.)
- Paywall members have the option of editing their comments.
- Paywall members get an Badge badge on their comments.
- Paywall members can “like” comments.
- Paywall members can “commission” a yearly article from Counter-Currents. Just send a question that you’d like to have discussed to [email protected]. (Obviously, the topics must be suitable to Counter-Currents and its broader project, as well as the interests and expertise of our writers.)
To get full access to all content behind the paywall, please visit our redesigned Paywall page.
Related
-
Notes on Plato’s Alcibiades I Part 3
-
The Folly of Quixotism, Part 2
-
The Folly of Quixotism, Part 1
-
Are Whites Finally Waking Up?
-
Democracy: Its Uses and Annoying Bits
-
The Psychology of Apostasy
-
Bottled Up
-
Counter-Currents Radio Podcast No. 584: The Counter-Currents Book Club — Jim Goad’s Whiteness: The Original Sin
49 comments
Alexander Hamilton was a cuck when it came to race. He wanted blacks to serve in the Revolution, supported slave revolts and thought blacks were just as good as whites when it came to their “natural faculties”. He seems to have had no problem with them staying in America. Jefferson is the real American hero. Let’s pretend Hamilton never existed.
Alexander Hamilton was a cuck when it came to race. […] Thought blacks were just as good as whites when it came to their “natural faculties.”
So was George Washington, John Adams and Thomas Madison.
While there is no doubt about the existence of white nationalist classical liberals, I am not sure whether the logical consequences of liberal principles are compatible with white nationalism.
I am not sure whether the logical consequences of liberal principles are compatible with white nationalism.
Well, fundamentally they ARE. These principles were invented by the White Europeans and for the White Europeans. They simply should not be applied to the non white peoples, and also for the white Non-Europeans. Just what I said in comment under the article about the Third-Worldism.
Also, French slogan about Fraternite’, just like Friedrich Schiller’s words Alle Menschen werden Brüder,were not invented to be applied to non-White peoples. Schiller could think maybe not about Germans only as Brothers, but also about the French, the English, Italians, Hollanders or Swedes, etc., but not about Zulus and Cameroonians.
He was also a jew or half jew.
Citation needed. How about from a Gentile academic before 1945?
🙂
There are a lot of articles and books regarding his ethnicity, not sure which ones were written by gentiles. He could just be the jew’s preferred shabbos goy like old Winny Churchill so they endless sing songs about him. He’s also the only “Not a bad White founding father” and has his own (((Broadway))) show along with Leo Frank.
If the jews love him the least we can do is treat him as a jew or a traitor.
Well, the Joos today may love him and want to claim him just because they like that (Kosher) Conservatives typically hate him.
I don’t agree that he was Shabbos Goy in any way, although some Sedevacantists think that the old church has been fighting the good fight all along and that the Founding Fathers (let alone Martin Luther) messed it up somehow. I disargee with both parts of that last bit.
But this speaks more to our own historical narrratives being distorted by Marxists who believe in Anarchy and Equality, and that is not what the Founders were about (not even Jefferson).
If they made a Rap musical about Adolf Hitler starring Blacks and homosexuals, who end up telling a very mythologized version of the history that manages to leave out all the important parts ─ then, whether demon or saint, would that be historically meaningful or convincing?
With billions of dollars in Jooish media promotion, and record-breaking Tony Awards, probably so for most people.
Doesn’t it say somewhere in the Talmud: We all bees Nïggas now.
Anyway, even if they got the old narratives right, at best it would be like portraying George Washington as the hyper-ingenuous boy who chopped down the cherry tree ─ and leaving out all his most significant generalship or statescraft.
🙂
Strongly disagree. Hamilton had zero illusions about Negroes ─ having been born illegitimate on the isle of Nevis in the British West Indies, which was a hub of the brutal African slave trade that Hamilton despised.
Hamilton was a quintessential American Nationalist and Patriot. Thanks to the efforts of a Protestant clergymen who admired his honesty in bookkeeping and style in writing about a hurricane, Alexander Hamilton attended an elite Preparatory school in New Jersey and then became an alumnus of King’s College (now Columbia). He joined the Revolutionary armies under General Washington and became his aide-de-camp, rising in rank. Colonel Hamilton endured the bitter Winter at Valley Forge, and unlike Governor Jefferson, never fled his post when the British were coming.
Alexander Hamilton was particularly admired by Francis Parker Yockey, who dedicated his magnum opus to the “Hero of the Second World War” (hint: that Hero was not in league with Roosevelt, Churchill, or Stalin).
Modern (Kosher) Conservatives and Libertarians tend to fetishize Marse Jefferson and demonize his friendly ideological rival, Hamilton. Plus, Alexander Hamilton’s mentor, General Washington was himself a Freemason (a fraternal anti-Clerical association composed of many other prominent Protestant elites).
Kosher Conservatives also spread the disingenuous notion that Hamilton put the country onto a “debt-based money system” by rationaling the Revolutionary War debt and putting the “full faith and credit of the Republic” behind its new currency.
More recently, some Jews like commentator David Brooks have tried to claim Hamilton as one of their own. Hamilton was born illegitimate but remained uncircumcized. That is pretty much prerequisite for the Tribe. Young Alexander once had a Jewess schoolmarm, and he practically invented modern American banking and statecraft, so he must be suspect.
A certain Uncle from Braunau on the River Inn once had a Jewish doctor caring for his beloved mother. I once had a Jewish pediatrician in Las Vegas when neon lights were still new and (((Sammy Davis Jr.))) was the only Negro in what used to be an old Mormon frontier town ─ long before the Chamber of Commerce dubbed it Sin City.
Make of it what you will, but I’d like to see a credible academic source older than, say, 1933 claiming that Alexander Hamilton was as Jewish as Jesus Christ.
In point of fact, there is nothing in Treasury Secretary Hamilton’s multiple reports on tariffs, currencies, and manufacturers that could not have been credibly written by Hjalmar Schacht.
This is a very good article by Mr. Kessler and I agree with most of it.
The Founding Fathers were indeed Racial Nationalists. The White part went without saying.
But I think the new Republic would have behooved itself to embrace a little more authoritarianism (per Hamilton) and not kicked the Negro Question tin can down the road after 1808 when the Atlantic slave trade was effectively torpedoed.
Hamilton’s colleague, Mr. Jimmy Madison from Virginia, dutifully enumerated a Bill of Rights for the new Constitution ─ that thankfully also separated Church and State, per Mr. Jefferson ─ but much future mischief could have been dispelled with a much more overtly-White Nationalism.
🙂
Freedoms and democracies are working only for Northern White Europeans and Protestant Christians, and even so with big restrictions. All another peoples could live only under authoritarian rule.
I agree with your first point.
Classic liberalism is Christian liberalism, specifically Protestant branches of Christianity that put a lot of emphasis on individual self-control. Without the last, the entire project is unworkable.
And yet the author’s earlier essay was against Christian Nationalism. So we’re to have civic liberalism without Christanity? I thought that was what got us into this mess in the first place. Or is it “classical liberalism” (without Christianity) married to nationalism?
It is all very confusing and sounds like an awfully tall order, given the current situation.
If you re-read my earlier articles I am not arguing to do away with Christianity. Unlike Jefferson’s villainous counterparts in Paris, I have no desire to de-Christianize the West. But I also do not want to live in a theocracy where nonbelievers are persecuted.
I know this is a hard concept for right-wingers to get behind but we need to be more tolerant… at least of our fellow white brothers and sisters.
Don’t forget that a key tenet of Classical Liberalism is religious liberty, a concept I should have perhaps highlighted a wee bit more in this article.
And yet the author’s earlier essay was against Christian Nationalism. So we’re to have civic liberalism without Christanity?
Well, I do not see here contradiction. I mean, nations that were raised in the spirit of Christian Protestantism. Now they may no longer resort to Christianity, but their mentality was already formed by it. It’s kind of like animal training. There is no need to train animals constantly if certain reflexes have already been developed.
This also applies to people. When people were hanged for centuries for the theft of 10p handkerchief, they were trained enough to obey the laws. And then you can stop hanging people, and you can later provide to them certain rights and freedoms – the reflexes have been developed.
Thank you for the interesting thoughts and for the essay itself, but I beg to differ with certain points.
First, so-called classical liberalism, as the dominant tradition of the American Founding, is a myth. The American political tradition of the 18th century is largely part of the general Anglo-British Whig culture of the 18th century. In this culture, freedom of speech did not include blasphemy and other “licentiousness” (an 18th century technical term for an unacceptable type of freedom) [Shain, 1996]. The same applies to religion – specific confessional indoctrination in schools was considered quite necessarily with the specificity that in the USA its First Amendment only left the power in this regard to the states [ibid; Kabala, 2015]. Within this tradition, in the state of nature (anarchy) everyone is equal, since there are no legitimate claims to power, but the formation of power transforms unalienable rights into alienable ones if the consent of the majority through law or custom requires it on any point of time [Shain, 2007]. And the very formation of power was associated with core of constituent people of society [Adams, 1980]: white, property-owning people (and only male [McDonald, 1985]).
And about democracy. In the collection – The Federalist, it is made quite clear that there is a principal difference between a democracy and a republic and the political model of the Founding Fathers (and the West, excluding the Swiss) is not a democracy [Holton, 2006; Holton, 2008].
***
Barry Alan Shain, The myth of American individualism: The Protestant origins of American political thought (Princeton University Press, 1996)
Barry Alan Shain, The nature of rights at the American founding and beyond (University of Virginia Press, 2007)
James Kabala, Church-State Relations in the Early American Republic, 1787–1846 (Routledge, 2015)
Willi Paul Adams, The First American Constitutions: Republican Ideology and the Making of the State Constitutions in the Revolutionary Era (University of North Carolina Press, 1980)
Forrest McDonald, Novus Ordo Seclorum: The Intellectual Origins of the Constitution (University Press of Kansas, 1985)
Holton, W. (2006). “Divide et Impera”: Federalist 10 in a Wider Sphere. In: Appleby, J. (eds) The Best American History Essays 2006. Palgrave Macmillan
Woody Holton, Unruly Americans and the Origins of the Constitution (Hill and Wang, 2007)
It seems like you might be getting tripped up on archaic esoteric intellectual concepts. (Of which you are admittedly, impressively well-informed). What I’m talking about is using the myths of the past to inform our future. As I stated, political ideology should not be treated as religion. And we have learned some things about forced diversity and the maintenance of society since the time of the Founding Fathers. We should be liberated to freely partake of the intellectual traditions of our ancestors without being overly tied down to them, as if by law.
We should treat their words, actions and policies as inspiration based on what they mean to us as modern White Americans, not trying too hard to trip ourselves up on academic historian concepts like “trying to see the world through their eyes.”
We are talking about developing future societies here.
The Aryan Nations pulls the Mighty Evil ZOG/Babylonian Empire’s Plug
Massa Tom Jefferson was portrayed most accurately as a race-mixing hypocrite in the smart faggot Gore Vidal’s novel “Burr”. A novel of a renegade Founding Felon who worked towards the establishment of ZOG/Babylon of Daniel 2:44 of the Beast Governments Under Satan’s Administration (USA, USA!!!) in which the last of the Beast regimes starting with Nebuchadnezzar II’s Babylon head of gold would be supplanted by feet of iron and clay unable to cleave together seeking to “mix the seed of men” which is as good a description of current ZOG/Babylon as can be found. The rock which grows to fill the earth is upon Chist’s Return which must be preceded by a Great Tribulation leaving 90% of the world population dead.
Now Jason Kessler went from being an Occupy Wall Street ZOGtard to a [j]ewnite the right at Charlottesville organizer ZOGbot for the Alt-skype as us old line White Supremacists call it. All that was accomplished by the 2017 variant of Greensbore 1979 lead by ZOGbots like Mattoid Chaimbach and Dickie Sphenctwer and others was a bunch of whigger lives being ruined by ZOGbots. Below is the 2017 501(c)(3) Income Tax Form for Bryan Reo’s Foundation for the MarketPlace of Ideas/ZOGbot Poverty FLaw Center.
http://bryanreo-lawsuits.xyz/Reo_19CV001304_Fed/2020/Oct20/26Oct20_ML/2103_Doc47-1_2017%20501c3.pdf
The Directards coonsist not only of a jewlatto homosexual Bryan Reo and Kyle Bristow who worked on getting the useless federal permit and suing these jewnivershitties for the 1/8 jew Dickie Spencthwer for ZOGbux but Mike the skype Enoch, James Edwards who sued this Detroit jogger reporter for linking him with Thom Robb of the successor to David Duck’s KKK, Thom Robb’s lawyer spawn Jason, William Johnston of the Third Position Party, and many more of the Charlottesville provocateurs. In fact Bryan Reo and Kyle Bristow were lawyers for Mattoid Chaimbach as well as hidden lawyers for Mike the skype Enoch. All this effort was for the aim of like Jan 6th to reveal white resistance to ZOG and then destroy it insofar as possible. The aim of Bryan Reo writing on Baal Finck’s pretend Christian Identity forum was to engage in civil lawfare to steal my South Dakota 1806 acre inheritance in Stanley County South Dakota:
http://bryanreo-lawsuits.xyz/Reo_19CV001304_Fed/2020/Oct20/26Oct20_ML/2103_Doc47-2_Prey4Success.pdf
On 11 April 2022 the South Dakota Supreme Court wrote the death sentence for every single judge, lawyer, politician and pig and theys’ families in South Dakota by denying my appeal on the grounds of my overt contempt for they’s “rule of law” and so they declared me an outlaw and denied me habeas corpus unless I can get a judge to agree. A month later in May 2022, they violated State Law 15A-16-6 in selling my inheritance while the $2.75 million civil judgments rendered by Bryan Reo lawfare were under appeal before the 6th US Circuit Court of Appeals. Bryan Reo “bought” it on the basis of these judgments which were set aside on Dec. 8, 2022. However the South Dakota judges also went after my sister for $150,000+ and are still wanting to give it to Bryan Reo and his lawyers. A lawyer in South Dakota — and anywhere in the ZOGland — thinks that every whigger only gets to own property until they can bring him into theys’ kort for legal process, be they Cheeto-Jesus the ZOG Emperor or an overt white supremacist like myself. They ignore that the sin of Sodom wasn’t forced homosexuality but rather forced barratry, i.e. kidnapping the caravan travellers on the route between Aquaba and Mesopotamia during the time of Abraham. Jesus Christ and the Archangel Michael were seeking 10 righteous men to overthrow these Canaanite judges ruling Sodom, Gomorrah, Zeboyim, and Admah and gave up on the regime-change upon facing an unwanted cornholing:
https://sacred-texts.com/chr/apo/jasher/19.htm
Jason Kessler in praising the Enlightenment is like the Masons praising Lucifer as the Enlightened Angel whose governance they adore, explicitly after 33rd degree, or the jews in they’s Talmud when they praise they’s father Cain who was the spawn of Lucifer. Evildoers always praise Satan for bringing them “enlightenment” from YHWH’s law.
Cheeto-Jesus the ZOG-Emperor shows us all what would happen if Julius Caesar had refused to cross the Rubicon. The “optimates” of the late Roman Republic would have lawfared him into ruin as well. The late Repubic was totally corrupt and after being assassinated in 44 BC, Caesar’s grand-nephew Octavian finished off the corrupt Senate class and the late Roman Repubic’s 133 BC to 31 BC civil war by setting up an Empire. So too shall the late ZOG pretend Empire be destroyed by both civil war and the rest of the world, starting with the Russians, Chinese, Koreans, Iranians pulling it down externally.
Now for the past 30 years as a militia leader and Christian Identity pastor I have advocated for the end of ZOG, pointed out that the CONstipation is a lie and fraud, and showed how to proceed politically. My program is “The Ten Thousand Warlords” in which local elites set up local theocratic military dictatorships at the county level in which jews and non-whites have no place to live. Now that today is akin the the Fall of the Old Kingdom of Egypt 2150-2000 BC, The Late Bronze Age Collapse of 1178 BC, the fall of the Western Roman Empire of 476 AD, I think that the 2020’s shall become known as the Late ZOG Age Collapse, and historians will say that it cum about for a number of factors. But the real reason shall be that YHWH’s Servant Nation of Aryan Christian Israel simply decided to pull the plug.
Hail Victory!!!
Pastor Martin Lindstedt
Church of Jesus Christ Christian/Aryan Nations of Missouri
https://odysee.com/@PastorLindstedt:f
Sounds like you need to ease up on the conspiracy theory nonsense, “pastor”.
You’re better suited to casting dispersions on men who’ve risked something while you safely collect an offering plate served up with lies.
The difference between you and me is I’ve faced real slings and arrows while yours are totally imaginary.
Jason Kessler: The Ray Epps of the Alt-skype
“Sounds like you need to ease up on the conspiracy theory nonsense, “pastor”.”
And what ‘conspiracy theory’ ‘nonsense is that, Mister Epps, Charlottesville ZOGbot? That all manner of Bowel Movement ZOGbots got ZOGling whigger ass-clown ZOGtards to show theys’ asses to the police, jewsmedia, and other ZOGtards in order to “jewnite” the Alt-skype? What was accomplished? You have whined about how Dickie Sphencthwer the 1/8 mischling called you a jew and other ZOGbots took overand reduced you to the background.
Do you have problems with me producing documents showing that a number of these poseur white nationalists have been ZOGbots out like you to ‘lead’ the [bowel] Moobmint to ???.
Insofar as being a pastor, I admit that I’m no pastor to mischling ZOGbots any more than Jesus Christ was the Messiah to the Spawn of Satan jews. However, I did get Roxie Fausnaught to file paperwork incorporating the Church of Jesus Christ Christian/Aryan Nations of Missouri in October 2006 and if you go to the Missouri Secretary of State web page can see that it is a corporation in good standing ever since. After Bryan Reo and his ZOGbot Poverty Flaw Center sued Roxie and Aryan Nations I took over as agent in 2016. Therefore me and my Church are at not only racial but religious civil warfare against ZOG/Babylon and intend to take every single item of property from the States of Ohio and South Dakota and sell it to China and return Alaska to the Russians, which offer the Chinese and Russian regimes seem open to especially given that ZOG is losing the wars against these rising empires. Also while See-Eye Dentist ZOGtards might not recognize my ecclesiastical authority, ZOG by making me and my Aryan Nations church a defendant does. As does the person who spread Chronic Wasting Disease in Adair county where a gut-sick jewboy with Chrons/jew ass-GAIDS eats deer and spread it in Cole and Boone County Arkansas to where it is in 50 other Missouri counties.
Stephen J. Cannel the writer made me the psychotic Christian Identity leader of a bunch of racist hobos in “The Devil’s Workshop” a novel of weaponizing prions to attack joggers and jews paid for by Army generals of the Pale Horse Prion made in Ft. Detrick, Md. The Reverend Lt. Colonel Fannion Kincaid was indeed a prime maniac killed with his racist hobo army by attack helicopters modeled after myself. He had asked after I posited spreading CWD as “Prion-poisoning” in 1996 and in 2000 it spread to Dane County Wisconsin then to six other states.
“You’re better suited to casting dispersions on men who’ve risked something while you safely collect an offering plate served up with lies.”
You ZOGbots sure don’t like being called out. In late July 2000, I was reading the Kansas City Red-Star making a big deal about Pat Buchanan denouncing me for racism while running for US Senate on the Reform Party Ticket. TraitorGlenn Miller was visiting me in my office in my mother’s trailer. I had just bought a new e-machine 450 K-2 computer and Miller was giving me his “White Man Speaks Out” book and a VCR tape. I said, why don’t you get a computer — I talk to Louis Beam and Katja Lane several times a week via e-mail over it. TraitorGlenn Miller got all whiter and run out the door. Outside he got calmer and asked me to put his book out on the Internet. When I asked Louis Beam and Katja Lane if they knew Miller Lane screetched that I ought to have killed Miller. After a while I agreed to pretend to be Miller’s Internet friend. I’d notify the Springfield paper about Miller’s history as a ZOGbot and snitch at Ft. Smith, and when Miller asked who had fincked him out said “Beats me Glenn.” Katja Lane told me about “phone-book fuerhers taking $400,000 and then not helping David Lane. I told her that Fearless Leader Pierce couldn’t get David Lane out from Florence SuperMax. Why did they give a ZOGbot like TraitorGlenn Miller $250,000 when at the end of Chapter 3 TGM had run out on them at Greensboro? In 2004 I was trying to get Miller to run for US Senate while I ran for Governor. TGMiller got all mad at me calling him a rat and he got on jewboy Linder’s VNNF.
https://vnnforum.com/showthread.php?t=3109
Katja Lane was David Lane’s wife and published David Lane material from Florence SuperMax. Louis Beam was trying to leave the Movement since after the Ft. Smith Sedition Trial but stayed behind to rebuild the Resistance, and got in touch with me in 1996 as I was running two Missouri militia groups and was a rising Christian Identity klansman. He got me in touch with Katja and Katja would put me in correspondence with David Lane. In 2003 she was under pressure in St. Maries County so she sold her David Lane stuff to Billy Roper and moved back to Secaucus New Jersey. Billy Roper was a FiBbIe Klansman wanting to play See-Eye Dentist and so he took Pastor Butler on a See Pastor Butler before he croaks tour. At the 50th Anniversity of Brown v. Board of Education Rally in May 2004 I met Corn Cobb, Billy Roper, jewboy Linder and took video of it. Anyways, the ORDER remnants and real Christian Identity groups put Billy Roper on notice that he had to get rid of TraitorGlenn Miller on his server using his v-bulletin license and the end result was the “Christmas Coup of 2004” in which TraitorGlenn Miller was booted. However TGMiller paid for a new v-bulletin license and server space and us anti TGMillerites were purged where we decamped to Bi-Polar Bradifer Griffin’s / Cunthair Walrus’s phorafags/feebs.
In any case I was glad to hear that TraitorGlenn Miller gunned down 3 mongrels in the old skypes home parking lot in hymietown KS around Passover 2014 as part of a deal with ZOG to let TGM dry out. He’d have been dead in 6 months if being jailed didn’r mean his lungs and liver got a break. Also, I wouldn’t be a suspect when he wound up dead.
Supporting ZOGbots is a sure way to become irrelevant in this bowel Movement as tolerating a rat means you run a sloppy organization dangerous to be associated with. jewboy Linder was injured when he brought in TraitorGlenn Miller in 2004 so Billy Roper had no choice but to start the Christmas Coup of 2004 when pressured to by the Order remnants and Christian Identity.
“The difference between you and me is I’ve faced real slings and arrows while yours are totally imaginary.”
Yes, I remember how you ran like a pussy after the provocation at Charlottesville was over. Must have been rough. Meanwhile I have lost my grandkids, had one turned into a homo, been beaten by pigs, had five teeth knocked out on Dec. 5, 2004, been doped up in a Nuthouse, forced to fight younger bigger psychos in a “Fulton fight club” and had as my only consolation winning the fight after the blackout and that the psycho nearly killed a staffer a year later, lost my inheritance, and do some nasty vicious shit [redacted] and win the 2d Civil War. But you did get a bunch of ZOGling whigger tards killing theysselfs, or going to jail, and you r.u.n.n.t.-o.f.f.t. and now want to cum-cum, cum-cum back.
Now I’ve been in this Movement since 1988 after the Ft. Smith Sedition Trial rebuilding. I probably wasn’t detected until 1993 when I was publishing a paper zine and founding militia groups. The people who got in trouble weren’t the ones quietly councilling domestic terrorism but rather the silent degeneration feebs playing at common-law korts and thinking that they had “rights”. There were ZOGbots in the Old Resistance before there was an Internet back then. But most of the ZOGling whigger ass-clowns wanted nothing more than a return to Evil Empire Lite. So I’d ask them “what do you want? Why are you here? And the answer was that they were just playing and not serious. In which case these harmless feebs were left on the outside until they could be eased out. Or left in place as harmless armor.
In the cases of Bryan Reo he and his ZOGbot Poverty Law Center act exactly like the Southern Poverty Law Center against Butler’s Aryan Nations or ZOG against the ZOG-Emperor. The solution to ending this is the same as followed during the Thirty Years War which ensured religious freedumb, i.e. killing millions until the warring state or church is no more. I think that nuclear power plants with theys nuclear fuel rods can be chernobyled around the blue hives. In South Dakota there are prion districts three counties away and it can be spread without detection and make the entire states cattle production boycotted by the rest of the world.
This is the second bogus stalking order before the Lake County Ohio kort. Bryan Reo lost a second case of 30 last August there as well.
http://bryanreo-lawsuits.xyz/Reo_19CV001304_Fed/2020/Oct20/26Oct20_ML/2103_Doc47-3_Stalking%20Order.pdf
And I also have problems as to how Granby Missouri is [mis]managed.
https://www.facebook.com/groups/363179937888031/?multi_permalinks=1475485979990749¬if_id=1707319378911810¬if_t=group_activity&ref=notif
In any case, Jason Kessler is the Ray Epps of Charlottesville. I myself thought that Charlottesville would be another Greensboro 1979 and urged people not ZOGbots to go [redacted] Not stupid ZOGling whigger ass-clowns going to jail over nothing.
Hail Victory!!!
Pastor Martin Lindstedt
Church of Jesus Christ Christian/Aryan Nations of Missouri
Europe is ethnically homogenous but has many of our same problems, and not just because of post-WW2 US hegemony, although that certainly contributed. Democracy is more than just casting ballots, it tends to devolve into rule by money (which even without Jews tends to be concentrated in economically minded people who are less spirited and virtuous) along with endless debate.
I’m 100% for free speech for everyone, but there needs to be some limitation on voting. Every Tom Dick and Harry voting is a recipe for disaster even if there is no Jamal voting either. I like Heinlein’s idea of a military stratocracy selecting for civic minded voters, but there are other options too.
There also needs to be some manner of imposing a long term view and accountability. Perhaps this is simply a president with expanded powers and a 10 year term, maybe a de-facto monarchy where House Trump wields great power through prestige. But democracy as it is tends towards a myopic 2-4 year view point with little real accountability, and this would be true even if the electorate was all white.
The Greek philosophers were also opposed to democracy despite how Athens was a militaristic ethnostate whose average citizen was amazing by modern standards, which suggests that democracy is inherently flawed.
It seems reasonable that before implementing any system of governance that we should tear the floorboards out of the old wreck and rigorously re-examine it for improvements.
Ideally there should be a conference where all of the faults of the old wreck are examined and corrections implemented.
Your criticisms about the influence of money in democracy are 100% valid and have to be addressed if any form of participatory government is implemented.
The corporate dystopia and oligarchy needs to be brought to heel for all time.
I agree totally.
Thinking about this a bit more. What do you think about voting as a badge of honor attained by citizens who pass competency requirements?
Aside from military service like in Starship Troopers, other types of national service programs could suffice, such as programs modeled after Florida’s State Guard, the Civilian Conservation Corps, or factory or farm work. This would kill two birds in one stone because it would be a good way of selecting civic minded voters while also solving the labor shortage which is used as a pretext for mass migration. 2 years should be sufficient to get free college and vote.
Making voting a privilege one earns rather than a right that any layabout is entitled to, or basing it on wealth and property, seems like a value added contribution to the concept.
I agree that voting and Citizenship has to be earned somehow, and it should be the exclusive affair of free Whites of good character. Much of the Fourteenth and all of the Fifteenth Amendment was terminal cancer.
Many countries have a differentiation between Citizens of the State and Nationals, who are merely born somewhere and are subjects to the laws of the land, and have similar rights as Green Card-bearing “landed immigrants.”
I also think that military service is intrinsically connected to Nationalism and public service. The Founders saw public service as a duty, a noblesse oblige. It was not something that the common classes ordinarily participated in except via military service. Thus, bearing arms, especially for one’s country, became seen as a integral part of Citizenship.
A volunteer military just does not cut the mustard. At the minimun there should be univesal conscription for a year or two as the minimum basis for Citizenship. Conscrption has historically been a class-leveler except when there are cut-outs for students and rich kids. Those that don’t hack it can go to the penal bridgade or emigrate.
Of course, some other avenues for public service can be recognized for conscientious objectors, and decent fat kids with glasses and inhalers that can’t dig a slit trench or fire a gun. I’d rather have somebody like that assisting me in the hospice in my final days than some retarded aspiring rapper that could not get hired at McDonalds.
We should think more along the lines of Frederick I who built a splendid Prussian military cadre system, but unlike his son, never spent that precious human capital on warfare, and especially not the pointless kind.
And here is the rub. If we have a first-class military and first-class soldiers, how do we prevent their engagement in pointless wars that are not in our true National interests?
Well, I don’t disagree with Nixon who said that the President can bomb anybody that he wants. But this does not mean that he should.
It is far too easy for the Commander in Chief in peacetime to respond to nonsense like blue dress scandals with military actions meant to be public-relations stunts, as the “tail wagging the dog.” Looking or acting Presidential is not the same thing as being Presidential.
Perhaps a Constitutional Amendment that prohibits conscripts or State Militias from serving overseas. Our own border needs the work for sure.
In any case, Citizenship needs to be a White thing that must be earned somehow.
🙂
I think this essay suffers from the fundamental issue of why it would be necessary for White Nationalism to need to have anything to do with ‘classical liberalism’ at all. Who is demanding that White Nationalists square this particular circle?
The Framers were not White Nationalists and trying to make out as if they were strikes me as somewhat fraudulent. The American System is money and trade. If that means trade in White bodies (which it did), then that’s fine. If you don’t get my point let me make it clear: indentured servitude was White slavery by Whites for the profit of Whites.
I don’t need the Framers to be White Nationalist. Which means I don’t need an explanation why these supposed White Nationalists failed so egregiously to protect White interests.
If we started all over again with the Constitution and the first ten Amendments, we’d be right back here in due course because the problem of the Constitution is the first ten Amendments. As long as the central federal authority is empowered to protect individual ‘rights’, no community of any kind would ever be safe from interference.
The reason classical liberalism cannot be an asset to White Nationalism is because communities, not individuals, are the bearers of ‘rights’. And liberalism cannot set aside ‘the individual’ or else it stops being liberalism.
The only way to counter the revolution against Whites is with a revolution for Whites.
And I don’t see how revolution for Whites can be harvested from ‘liberalism’ of any kind.
I am making the argument because the default assumption in WN seems to be that we need a Hitlerian strong man to lead us. That system rarely outlives the Great Man, and often dies with him.
Another disturbing trend in Christian WN circles are calls for theocracy and oppression of skeptics.
And lastly, there are those who want to do away with free speech so long as we are deciding what gets censored.
To me, these are all troubling trends. Perhaps others are not talking about this yet but I am.
Everyone is rightfully frustrated with the way our world has turned out but I just want to caution against idealizing other forms of government that we have not had to live under the bootheel of.
While things have obviously turned out poorly, the United States has done a lot of things right and we would be better off taking the things that worked and jettisoning the ones that didn’t.
I don’t think your assertion that the founding fathers “failed to protect us” is fair. That was predominantly a failure of subsequent generations. We all know the mistakes the founders made by this point but they also accomplished something truly remarkable and perhaps unprecedented in world history. These were white men of remarkable intellect and achievements in a time when white men fashioned civilization from war, barbarism and wilderness. We would be wise not to forget that.
I am making the argument because the default assumption in WN seems to be that we need a Hitlerian strong man to lead us.
As long as ‘pro-White’ is considered synonymous with ‘right-wing’ we’ll have this problem.
Another disturbing trend in Christian WN circles are calls for theocracy and oppression of skeptics.
This really should come as no surprise. White Christians have always abused the White race when they had the power to do so.
And lastly, there are those who want to do away with free speech so long as we are deciding what gets censored.
This is really the crux of the problem. If you’re going to have the ‘right’ of ‘free speech’ inhere in ‘the individual’ then you will by necessity have to have a ‘entity’ exterior to any actually-existing community to enforce that ‘right’.
And, in the end, the entity will end up erasing all community.
Everyone is rightfully frustrated with the way our world has turned out but I just want to caution against idealizing other forms of government that we have not had to live under the bootheel of.
I think you’re trying to salvage the unsalvagable.
While things have obviously turned out poorly, the United States has done a lot of things right and we would be better off taking the things that worked and jettisoning the ones that didn’t.
Okay, but if your starting point is ‘individual rights guaranteed by a central authority’ well be right back here in due course.
I don’t think your assertion that the founding fathers “failed to protect us” is fair. That was predominantly a failure of subsequent generations.
Everything that has happened unfolded from the toxic seeds sown in the era of the Framers, including ‘all men are created equal’ and the use of the euphemism of ‘persons’.
The specific nature of the Constitution was the result of a specific set of circumstances at the time of the Revolution and the immediate aftermath. Those circumstances have not prevailed for some time. That, alone, should give one pause as to the likelihood of mining value from the Constitution.
We all know the mistakes the founders made by this point but they also accomplished something truly remarkable and perhaps unprecedented in world history. These were white men of remarkable intellect and achievements in a time when white men fashioned civilization from war, barbarism and wilderness. We would be wise not to forget that.
I’m not forgetting, I’m just saying that the past is irrelevant unless one can show how it is.
The fatal flaw in the American Constitution Order is the fatal flaw in liberalism itself: That rights inhere in individuals and that the purpose of government is to ‘protect’ those rights.
We need a new constitution of communities, not individuals.
What we do not need is a powerful central state that can poke it’s nose (and bayonets) wherever it thinks it sees a violation of ‘civil rights’.
There is another way.
https://thecirculationofelites.substack.com/p/a-case-study-in-the-phenotype-wars
Hamburger, why are you ignoring my post above? Classical liberalism is a myth. The Bill of Rights or the Ten Amendments in founding era were never intended to used against individuals. Only against the federal government to protect the states [Gangi, 1993; Shain, 2007].
***
William Gangi, Saving the Constitution from the courts (University of Oklahoma Press, 1995)
Barry Alan Shain, The nature of rights at the American founding and beyond (University of Virginia Press, 2007)
The first ten amendments are the best part of the old Constitution, the rest of it is generally tedious or out dated like the commerce clause. The only problem with the Bill of Rights is that the individual “me” rights they protect are not balanced against corresponding duties or with communal “we” rights. That’s a pretty easy fix if we can just get to a new constitutional convention, which is the hard part because that will probably have to be through a National Divorce.
The problem with the ‘bill of rights’ is that (a) they inhere to individuals and (b) in order to ‘protect’ these rights, an outside entity (‘the state’) must exist to do so. Once this happens, no community is safe.
The ‘rights’ an individual has need be no more fair than the genetic inheritance of a person.
If you’re born in a certain community, the community defines the limits of your rights.
If we accept that ‘all men are created equal’ is not true, then there is no reason to preserve the idea of equality of rights to all persons in all places.
Every time you create an individual ‘right’ that the state must protect, you create another mechanism for the destruction of local rule and local culture.
The Framers wanted to control the development of White culture in America. They did a fine job of that. They controlled it right into bringing the race to the brink of dispossession in North America.
At the ideological level, White Nationalism should assert the ultimate value of White politics is Whites ruling over Whites in the interest of Whites.
Any violation of that formula should be reason for other White Nationalist communities to act.
It’s really the only rule we need.
Hamburger, hello! Special for you, excerpt from Barry Alan Shain, Nature of Rights at the American Founding and Beyond (University of Virginia Press, 2013):
«Indeed, the Bill of Rights as it was conventionally viewed in the antebellum era looked profoundly different from the Bill of Rights as widely understood today. Born in the shadow of a Revolutionary War waged by local governments against an imperial center, the original Bill affirmed various rights against the central government, but none against the states, as the Supreme Court made clear in the landmark 1833 case of Barron v.Baltimore. And the rights that the original Bill did affirm sounded more in localism than libertarianism. … For example, while the First Amendment made clear that Congress could not establish a national church, it also forbade Congress from disestablishing
state churches. Several of the states had government-supported churches in the 1780s, and many other “nonestablishment” states favored Protestant Christianity in some way or other.»
I agree with Mr. Kessler’s broad thesis that Classical Liberalism has much of value, such as freedom-of-speech and the separtion of Church and State.
White Nationalists do not benefit by throwing out the Baby with the Bathwater.
I also think that it you take Classical Liberalism to its own logical conclusions, i.e., fetishizing Liberty and enforcing Equality, then you end up with Anarchy or Bolshevism ─ or Corporate Globaloney.
That is why in academia, a field dominated by Marxist professors and administrators, with plenty of echoes to go around, that you often hear the refrain that Fascism and National Socialism break off completely from the Enlightenment, or any rational and progressive thought in general.
I somewhat disagree with that claim. A Fascist or Nazi version of Modernity may have been different from Marx or Freud, but it was no less modern or progressive than whatever nostrums can be contrived by Liberals.
I agree with what you say that the Bill of Rights is a great part of the Constitution ─ but that was not the purpose of the Constitution, which was to create a strong Nation-State instead of thirteen dysfunctional Switzerlands. Libertarians usually argue that the Articles of Confederation were hunky-dory. I don’t.
General Washington sided with Colonel Hamilton’s letter-writing campaign to hold a Constitutional Convention for the purpose of actually creating a Nation-State out of a collection of weak and impotent “duchies.” This was possible largely because the prominent gentlemen of these states all held General Washington in the highest esteem.
If we look at the Federal versions of the Roman Fasces symbol, where the term Fascism comes from, we see not Jews being beaten up but a stately collection of weak sticks or tribes all bound together in common unity as a larger one, but retaining their individual identies, and with an axe head placed at the top signifying authority and sovereignty.
The obverse of the old Mercury dime had a nice fasces. There are statues of George Washington and Alexander Hamilton standing with Fasces (also Abe Lincoln at his monument in the Capital City, but we won’t mention that).
The old (Kosher) Conservative view is that Marse Jefferson off in Paris went along with the Constitution only insofar that the National goverment was made very weak (probably too weak to function in the long term, much to Hamilton’s fears) and that agricultural virtues would reign supreme in Congress.
It is no surprise that about a hundred and fifty years later, two smarmy New York plutocrats were ardent Jeffersonian Democrats, President Franklin Roosevelt and Treasury Secretary Henry Morgenthau, Jr. who were also unironically faithful agricultural romanticists. The latter was of the vindictive tribal persuasion, who even wanted to pastoralize defeated Germany “for their own good.”
My view is that the U.S. Constitution indeed fell short of creating the strong Nation-State that Hamilton wanted, and that the country needed, but this was not because of the Bill of Rights.
Jefferson’s fellow Virginian, James Madison presented a good-faith effort in drafting a Bill of Rights to assuage anti-Federalist objections, and he did an admirable job separating Baby from Bathwater and adding value to the product.
Unfortunately, the final Constitution that was ratified fell short of creating a strong Nation-State rather than a Union of squabbling states with far too much power to go their own way and later to vie for punitive puritan policies against their regional neighbors.
Nullification of bad laws that a state did not like was not the answer to this quandary since the problem of the Tariff of Abominations was not what Hamiliton intended nor executed as Treasury Secretary ─ i.e., to forge the nation and to legitimize the value of its bonds and currency. But decades later the Abolitionists in the North intended and were successful in using taxing authority to punish the agricultural and slaveholding South, who in turn stridently talked of increasing their national influence by expanding their Peculiar Institution into the the Western frontier (which also grossly misread racial reality).
So Nullification and Secession were not the answer to bad laws and evil design, but I do agree (and I don’t think that Mr. Hamilton would argue otherwise) that States that had the right to form the Union didn’t not also have the right to leave it.
In short, Hamilton was following Hobbes with the constitution, whereas Jefferson who wrote the Declaration of Independence ─ one of which was the law-of-the-land and the other not ─ borrowed from Locke and Rousseau with the pursuit of Property (er, I mean Happiness) and Equality.
But Jeffrson did not mean the kind of equality that the Libtards and Marxists believe in. Jefferson meant Equality Before the Law. Or, as the Christians thought of it, every Nobleman or Hottentot would face the eternal judgement of God as any other man or woman.
Equality before the law is why at the halls of justice, there is often a statue of Lady Liberty wearing a blindfold and holding scales of balance. All legal systems hold that laws should be applied impartially. Blacks don’t get to rape just because they don’t see it as wrong. Whether the police can properly enforce this outside of an ethnostate is another question.
Hobbes, in short, sought a strong State, with a capital S, where force (other than in self-defense) is monopolized by the Sovereign or the head of the Body with sovereign authority.
And this creates an environment of laws, custom, and civilization, where life is no longer “solitary, poor, nasty, brutal, and short.” That is exactly what Colonel Hamilton believed in.
The lady in hooped skirts in 1900 could maybe walk down the streets of New York unescorted to get an iced treat without being assaulted by a basketball-American just around the corner of Trinity Church where Mr. Hamilton is buried.
Similarly, a lady in the streets of Berlin in a certain timeframe could probably even do it after dark without fear.
That is obviously not true today. And I don’t think the Founders can be blamed other than they did not have crystal balls and could not imagine that hundreds of years hence there would not be a de facto ethnostate.
So, I am largely in agreement, but I don’t think that the only good parts of the Constitution were the Bill of Rights and some obsolete commerce clauses. To the extent that the Founders were demigods, I certainly don’t believe that. But Hamilton does not get enough credit as a statesman other than some nonsense from Rappers who probably also think that Thomas Edison was Black.
🙂
“Classical liberalism is still the best system for… upholding the will of the majority…”
I don’t disagree with you in principle, but I think you are confusing terms when speaking about classical liberalism. This is confusing liberalism and democracy, which are two separate things. Democracy is a question of identity (rule by the people supposes the existence of a group sufficiently homogenous enough to be described as a people), whereas liberalism is a question of individual rights and liberty. These two things are not only distinct, but as Schmitt and Benoist clarify, are actually incompatible ideas. Classical liberals have always been opposed to the rule of the people because of the threat that democratic identity and populism poses to individual rights. All of the Founding Fathers, save maybe Jefferson, were vehemently opposed to democracy because they believed it was incompatible with their cosmopolitan liberal value system. The American system of representative government was designed to serve as an anti-democratic, anti-majoritarian check against democratic identity formation, to prevent majorities from violating individual/property rights. The Founding Fathers cared more about protecting and enlarging their private fortunes than promoting the wellbeing of any people or state. Contemporary elites, particularly neoconservatives, regularly appeal to the anti-democratic cosmopolitanism of the American Founding Fathers when justifying globalization and the dispossession of white America. I’m biased because I wrote it, but I recommend reading Liberal Anti-Democracy: https://counter-currents.com/2023/05/liberal-anti-democracy-part-1/
Alternatively, I highly recommend reading Unruly Americans and the Origins of the Constitution by Woody Holton or The Framers’ Coup: The Making of the United States Constitution by Michael Klarman. America is not a democratic panacea and never has been. The corporate dystopia and oligarchy is not a perversion of American values but rather is baked into its individualistic teleology.
Classical liberalism is basically individualism. It supposes that the state and political society exists primarily to protect the civil rights of individuals (Locke, Montesquieu, Madison, etc.). The American Constitution never represented an identitarian state. It was always a document defining a private sphere economic zone, with any questions of identity being purely secondary considerations to its individualistic liberal value commitments. Classical liberalism may not be inherently anti-white, but it does have an inherently anti-political teleology without any internal defense against contemporary liberalism and globalization. Jews subverted America because liberal individualism is easily subverted. You could even make the case, as neoconservatives do with enormous success, that neoliberal globalization and multiculturalism is the logical conclusion of liberal individualism. Ricardo Duchesne believes that classical liberalism is responsible for the ethnocide of Europeans globally, and I can’t help but agree with him: https://www.unz.com/article/blame-liberal-pluralism-for-the-impending-ethnocide-of-europeans/
There is obviously a reason why Jews defected en masse from communism to American liberalism. Jews arguably didn’t even subvert America, but just challenged Americans to truly live up to their liberal individualistic credo. White Americans lost because they were committed to vague values like “individual liberty” instead of political conceptions of identity. America promised to emancipate individuals from political commitments by grounding human association on voluntary contract instead of identity (i.e., I am German/French/Ukrainian, my life, fate and destiny is interlinked with my nation and supersedes my individual freedom and civil rights), and now Americans are living the American dream, as atomized, untethered individuals drifting about within a globalized marketplace with other untethered, disembedded and truly “free” individuals. Whether white Americans be replaced by Africans, Chinese, Philippinos, Mexicans, or East Indians doesn’t matter, because liberal epistemology supposes that individual rights are always superior to the rights of natural groups, which don’t actually even exist per the epistemology of liberal individualism.
Classical liberalism = individualism, and individualism is totally incompatible with white nationalism. If you are a white nationalist then you are not a liberal, because you believe that group identities supersede individual rights. On the topic of “developing future societies,” the basic constitutional principle of any white ethnostate needs to be the protection and preservation of the people. Vague, individualistic classical liberal value commitments like “life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness” need to be firmly subordinated to this primary telos. Things like civil rights and individual freedom need to be considered a privilege and function of membership in the political community, not the end goal and purpose of the state. A political ideology based on “life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness” is a recipe for exactly what we have now. We’ve already tried the American experiment and seen where it leads.
White nationalists need to divorce themselves from their liberal priors once and for all. Jefferson and American populism does provide an alternative, but it is distinct from liberalism. Arguably, American populism per Jefferson and Jackson is further from liberalism and closer to Carl Schmitt’s conception of democracy, which involves a single-party state based on a charismatic populist leader and direct democracy implemented through regular referendums, instead of moronic multi-party elections to staff a dysfunctional congress full of corporate shills and traitors who do nothing but stab their voters in the back and sell their country out to corporate parasites.
I have a lot of reading I can recommend on the topic, but I also plan to publish a piece soon summarizing Schmitt’s corpus to explain how liberalism and democracy are contradictory principles and how democracy is the greatest threat to the liberal internationalist regime. Forgive the novel, but I think this is a very important issue.
Schmitt’s conception of the single-party state is a deep flaw in his conception of the way forward. Calhoun’s concept strikes me as safer: ‘civic organizations’ (unions, co-ops, etc) confronting one another in a deterrence regime to provide a Plan B when virtue fails.
In the end, the only real political question is ‘What do you want?’.
Until you can give a concrete answer to that question, all political activity will come to naught.
First, let me applaud you for the depth of knowledge and research you have on this topic. Now to the matter at hand…
I think folks are getting way too hung up on legalistic technicalities of scholarly dissertations on political theory. What I am saying here is essentially that the White ethnostate should have:
1. Effective racial homogeneity
2. Freedom of speech
3. Freedom of religion
4. Representative, participatory government
5. Right of assembly
6. Right to privacy and against unlawful search and seizure
7. Right to bear arms
So before we get derailed into opaque and byzantine arguments about political theory which of these principles are you actually opposed to?
I cannot speak for Kenneth Vinther, but I don’t support any ‘rights’ of ‘individuals’ or ‘persons’ of any kind. If a community wants to disarm its members, it should be able to do so. What it cannot do is dictate the policy to other communities. The only way to avoid that is to not have a state with the mandate to interfere in communities via shabby little subterfuges like ‘individual rights’.
Communities rights have to be superior to individual rights in the same way that the interest of the race has to take precedence over the interest of individuals.
The instant you grant individuals enforceable ‘rights’ you create the conditions where a central political entity can appear justified in interfering in the life of communities.
I honestly see no reason why White liberal communities composed of individuals afraid of firearms should be required to allow individuals in those communities to keep and bear arms.
By the same token, I don’t see any reason why extreme racial purist communities could not practice eugenics.
It’s a fundamental error to think that a set of ‘rules’ can be created that cover all possible contingencies.
Better to promote a culture of comity and communication between communities to avoid friction where values collide.
Jason, I actually agree with all of those within reason, except for #4, but I think they should derive from democracy, not liberalism. Bear with me.
The American Founding Fathers opposed democracy. They thought ordinary people could not be trusted to respect the private property interests of the wealthy, so they opted for the representative system, which implied delegating power away from the people and into representatives, probably lawyers or people with connections to the business community who would have a superior understanding of legality and would have at heart the interests of the commercial community. Representative government is a liberal, not a democratic concept, which implies centering power within an elite that is independent from its constituents and free to decide issues regardless of what voters believe. We’ve seen how that turned out. Representative government is profoundly corrupt and dysfunctional and congress is infested with corporate parasites and traitors. Elections do not allow voters to decide policy issues through electing representatives, and this is because elections are not a democratic concept: https://counter-currents.com/2023/07/misrepresentative-government-why-democracy-doesnt-work-part-i/
We can appeal to the American political tradition, but to its democratic, rather than its elitist liberal foundations, through the figures of populists like Jefferson and Jackson instead of liberals like Madison and Hamilton. I think we should abandon representative democracy in favor of direct democracy. We do not need “representatives” but a single “representative” in the figure of a king/president/dictator to manage the state and carry out the will of the people, and instead of elections for representatives, we have direct democratic referendums on policy issues. Instead of electing politicians on totally vague and nebulous agendas, election platforms, and non-binding election promises (which they always break), we have referendums on laws and policy issues. No elections for demagogues, only policy issues. Instead of voting for politicians as independent leaders to do whatever they want when they’re in office – like voting for Trump, who promised to build a wall and deport illegals but may or may not ultimately decide to do that and maybe some of it was hyperbole or just things his political consultants told him to say to get elected – we vote on policy issues. The American people command the state to build a wall, to secure the border, to deport illegals, etc. The federal government wants to send $30 billion to Israel? It must be approved by a majority of voting citizens, instead of their so-called “representatives” in congress, which is quite literally a hive of scum and villainy full of people who have no business running the country or managing the public’s money.
Representative democracy is beyond corrupt and moronic, and Americans have been suffering under this system for hundreds of years. I remind that Woodrow Wilson and FDR actually won elections on anti-war political campaigns, and then immediately changed face after being elected and sent hundreds of thousands of white Americans to die fighting their kin in their ancestral homelands for Jewish financial interests. The political class also lied through its teeth about the 1965 Immigration Act, because if it was put to a referendum the proposal would have been shot to pieces. Europeans are currently disappearing because their corrupt and incompetent system of government is prone to being controlled by Jewish lobbyists and bankers. Elections and representation according to the Founding Fathers myth of the supposedly enlightened liberal class of technocrats is a curse that is killing us. We should just scrap the liberal representative bullshit and embrace direct democracy if we are going to keep laboring under myths like “democracy” and “the will of the people.” Give us the real thing.
We can look to Ancient Athens as a model in this, which could also serve as a repository of symbolism for European Nationalist movements. The advent of Ancient Athenian democracy led to strict citizenship laws because they believed that preserving racial and cultural homogeneity was essential for protecting the democratic constitution. They also believed that democracy meant accountability to the demos, so there were severe and extreme punishments reserved for politicians who sold out the public interest to private or foreign interests. We could mirror this by providing the ability to recall officials who betray the public trust and, if the death penalty is too extreme for people’s sensibilities, maybe strip corrupt politicians of their wealth or ship them to prison. Why the Clintons and others get to run around with hundreds of millions after betraying the public and selling their country out to Zionists is beyond me. Public officials shouldn’t be permitted to get rich by selling out the public interest, but liberalism supposes that the private rights of elected representatives, who are ultimately just private citizens, are sacrosanct above public considerations. The Ancient Athenian constitution was hated by the Founding Fathers and 19th century liberals when designing representative institutions because they thought ordinary people had no business participating in politics and that political representatives should be completely independent and unaccountable in their decision-making. I think we should look to Athens, not the Founding Fathers.
Representative government is a catastrophic failure. A white nationalist state should be a democratic, not a liberal state.
Mr. Vinther, in his compact 2007 article in the collection he edited, Shain unequivocally proved what he had argued since 1996 – within the mainstream thought of the American founding – in the state of nature (anarchy) all are equal, since there are no legitimate claims to power, but the formation of power turns all of inalienable rights into alienable ones through the consent of the majority in form its law or custom [Shane, 2007]. Classical liberalism, as the myth of perennially inalienable rights, emerges only after the Civil War.
***
Barry Alan Shain, The nature of rights at the American founding and beyond (University of Virginia Press, 2007)
I concede that the political ideology of classical liberalism (like Christianity) can be compatible with White nationalism and ethno-nationalism more broadly. In fact, the liberal revolutions of 1848 could be characterized as being motivated by a desire to create ethnostates as opposed to civic nationalist projects reminiscent of Revolutionary France. Those movements opposed absolutist monarchical states, especially those that were composed of many ethnic groups such as Austrian Empire.
However, the fact that a qualified form of classical liberalism may be compatible with White nationalism does not mean that it is the optimal system of government for a White nationalist ethnostate in the twenty-first century. Just like the contemporary understanding of Christianity is largely, but not wholly, detrimental to the White race, classical liberalism as a political ideology is largely, but not wholly, detrimental to our cause.
In the U.S., the Free Speech Clause and the Free Exercise Clause work today to promote the freedom to advocate communism, multi-racialism, replacement immigration from the third-world, anti-white discrimination, Jewish values, miscegenation, Zionist wars, and white genocide and the freedom to secure the rights of religious groups such as Jews and most Christian sects that intentionally poison the minds of our people with demonstrable lies concocted by ancient Jews and operate NGO’s that flood our borders will hostile military-aged invaders.
Classical liberalism caused multiculturalism to flourish by providing the ideological justification for protecting its proponents.
One could reply that these liberties should not lawfully be abused by those who exercise them. However, the qualifications that one must place on those rights to ensure that White gentile citizens do not encourage White suicide, as they are increasingly wont to do, or aid and abet White genocide would render those rights largely meaningless.
How would the liberal ethnostate react to a wealthy White gentile citizen who converts to Judaism or a establishes a growing Christian Zionist sect or a wealthy White gentile citizen who advocates mass immigration and miscegenation? Would their freedom of religion and freedom of speech be curtailed? If not, this grant of individual freedom would fundamentally endanger our race by allowing the proliferation of subversives in our ranks.
Just like the Third Reich promoted Positive Christianity as a transitional religion in the Germanic nation, one can in good faith promote Positive Classical Liberalism as a transitional political ideology in the White American nation.
Nevertheless, liberal democracy, the current successor of classical liberalism, is a foul form of government that degenerates nations like tuberculosis or AIDs does to men. One can observe that in any nation that has functioned as a liberal democracy for a long length of time. Empirically, liberal democracy has been correlated with modern Europe’s suicide through immigration and anti-white campaigns. This governmental system even in its ideal classical liberal form from which its demonic progeny was spawned is far from the best that we can hope for as you suggest. Looking at the fruit of classical liberalism is not encouraging for that system.
A republican form of government that acts for the physical survival of the whole nation, not for the abstract rights of the individual member, and that is comprised of a martial, as opposed to mercantile, elite class would be far superior to our constitution both as it exists today and as it was when it was adopted in 1789.
I was in general agreement with you until you got to the ‘martial republic’ thing. That’s just asking for trouble. Modern warfare is dysgenic. We don’t need to be ruled by a warrior caste. We don’t need a ruling class at all. We’d be better off selecting national representatives for 10-year terms by lottery than virtually any system the Right has proposed in the last 100 years.
Among the Ancient Greeks, democracy, firstly, concerned only local self-government, since we were talking about poleis, and there was no single large united Greek state. Secondly, in Greece only men who were personally free, owned property, and were able to bear arms could participate in elections and self-government. I don’t know if they also had to be able to write and read, maybe so. Apply this to the criteria of the current pseudo-liberal pseudo-democracy, and you will understand that 80% of the modern electorate could not take any part in Greek democracy. So modern democracy is a misnomer, a stolen name and a perversion of the original meaning of the once good term.
Ancient Athenian democrats believed that elections were incompatible with democracy. The demos governed directly through the assembly (ekklesia). They elected generals and other administrative roles that required talent and expertise, but these public officials were held accountable to the demos in the assembly and could be punished by the assembly if they betrayed the public trust. They could also be issued commands and instructions from the assembly. Athens did have regular speakers or “politicians,” but they didn’t have formal legal powers and needed to persuade the assembly on every policy issue they advocated. Additionally, legal repercussions such as the graphe paranomon were available for politicians who advocated laws against the interests of Athens, and any speakers found to be taking bribes to advocate on behalf of private or foreign interests would be sentenced to death or exiled. Ancient Greek democracy is something completely foreign to any electoral so-called democratic states today.
The founders were not classical liberals they never called himself class liberals people just call them classical liberals they were a wistocratic republicanists and a few of them actually wanted absolute monarchy
I’m sure Kessler will also pretend that they won’t all devout Christians who believe this was a Christian Nation but back when this country is run by 500 iq anglos
But the concept that you don’t need to write every single thing explicitly and it’s implied escapes 95% of people
If you ask someone if this is a Christian white Nation in the 1800s they look at you like you are a mental patient it’d be like asking if water is wet
If you ask someone if this is a Christian white Nation in the 1800s they look at you like you are a mental patient it’d be like asking if water is wet.
If you asked George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, Ben Franklin, Thomas Paine, James Madison, or John Adams if America was a Christian nation, they would have said, “no.”
Deism is a dispute of Doctrine not a dispute of religion
You’re right I’m sure the founding fathers be totally okay with people spreading atheism or Judaism or Islam even though Thomas Jefferson specifically did not like Islam
Saying that no specific church should have power over the United States is not the same thing as saying that this is not a Christian Nation
Jim get arguments against this being a Christian Nation that haven’t been thoroughly disproven
Jim you’re the only person on the face of the planet who didn’t get over his edgy atheist phase and decided to carry it into your adult life
Atheism is just another form of communism and all of the new atheists were charlatans
It’s not my fault you’re perpetually stuck in the 2000s
You wrote:
Saying that no specific church should have power over the United States is not the same thing as saying that this is not a Christian Nation
From the link I provided:
Even the devout, church-going Congregationalist John Adams, who had signed the Declaration of Independence, inked his presidential signature on the 1796 Treaty of Tripoli affirming to Americans and the world that “the United States is not, in any sense, a Christian nation.”
I guess John Adams was one of those edgelords, too.
It’s not my fault you’re perpetually stuck in the 2000s
Says the guy who’s stuck in 33 A.D. It’s not my fault your brain is too small to fit anything larger than memes.
Founders as majority were religious people, as proved by M. E. Bradford in his «Founding Fathers: brief lives of the framers of the United States Constitution» (University Press of Kansas, 1994):
“M.E. Bradford’s brief lives of the Founding Fathers, free of ideological prejudices, tell us the sort of delegates those fifty-five were: gentlemen, with few exceptions, attached to precedent and custom, prescription and “ancient constitutions.” Those colonial gentlemen, so very British, were not in the least inclined to destroy the prevailing pattern of American society. More fully than most commentators upon those Framers, Bradford has carefully examined their several religious persuasions or affiliations, discovering few Deists or unchurched.” from Foreword by Russell Kirk in this book.
And other recent examples include Australian PMs Menzies and Caldwell and their support for the White Australia Policy.
If you have Paywall access,
simply login first to see your comment auto-approved.
Note on comments privacy & moderation
Your email is never published nor shared.
Comments are moderated. If you don't see your comment, please be patient. If approved, it will appear here soon. Do not post your comment a second time.